Add repositories to synaptic

I have tried typing in the web page in the appropriate place, but that does not seem to work.

There is a further problem: When I do the apt-get install texlive it goes right to the 2009 version. If I add the 2012 version on the website, does that mean that it wont work with 12.04?

Clearly, the OP expects to get TeXLive 2012 by adding a repository being the informative web page. This is not the case, it's just an informational page stating how to get it compiled and what versions are available in which distributions.

Why not just fix the question to be more generic? Maybe the person was just trying to edit the question to make more sense; "Add repositories to synaptic" was a poor title.
– Jorge CastroJan 15 '13 at 17:05

@JorgeCastro Good suggestion for an answer. Added it as such.
– gertvdijkJan 15 '13 at 17:21

2

Actions here are pretty obvious, no need for fuzz I would say. This is the base of our work: edit, approve, clean, revert, fix, make it better... I wouldn't spend time thinking about it. Just revert the edit and move along.
– Bruno PereiraJan 15 '13 at 18:31

2

If it makes a difference, I only changed the title once my answer was accepted by the OP and upvoted a couple times.
– Kevin BowenJan 15 '13 at 18:52

@maggotbrain Ah you've found your way here. :) Even if your question was accepted, it wasn't the original question of OP (too specific) and therefore more than an improvement with at least a suggestion to write towards your answer. But that detail about accepting first is important indeed to point out in this case. Thanks.
– gertvdijkJan 15 '13 at 19:21

I fail to find any discussion about this amusing, sorry peeps.
– Bruno PereiraJan 15 '13 at 23:11

5 Answers
5

In the first place the question chosen by the OP was not a good one. It was open, and could easily be closed as a dupe to any other question asking for how to change our sources.

But the OP did ask for a repository, and also he did ask for a LaTEX repository. Therefore the title needed to be edited. It is probable coincidental that the answerer also proposed the edit, as he was the person who did read and understand the question first.

If however the question was asked different in the first place, i.e. if we were not asked for a repository but any way including compiling from source to install LaTEX we should also have said so in a title edit. Then it would perhaps become obvious that we already have this question here:

Flaggability is Orthogonal to Ridiculousness

Except to handle a pattern that needs moderator attention, flagging when editing does the job should be avoided.

If there's an edit war or a pattern of actions that change the meaning of questions without good reason, or that game the system, then of course flagging makes sense. In isolated cases, though, it's hard for me to see what flagging would accomplish.

Remember, all of us encounter problems with posts from time to time that we think are ridiculous. So we edit them (or submit edits for review).

It is by design that there is no "This is ridiculous!" flag reason. Posts that need moderator attention should be flagged for moderator attention whether the problem arose from ridiculousness or reasonable action. Similarly, any post that does not need moderator attention should not be flagged.

When the Post is Edited to be On-Topic

That's not quite the situation here, but this meta question will be referred to again in similar situations.

While that was primarily focused on closing questions that might be considered better-suited for another SE site, it applies to any question that's potentially valuable to the community, where on-topic answers could be helpful to the OP.

So sometimes someone will contribute by editing a question to refine it and establish it as within the scope of our site, which is a contribution that benefits us all. Sometimes someone will contribute by posting properly scoped answers to questions, which is a contribution that benefits us all. Sometimes someone will do both.

Whether the change is for scope, clarity, "questionliness," or any other important variable...

Sometimes someone will edit and answer a question inappropriately, in a way that does not benefit anyone. That doesn't always mean ill intent. They may have been trying to do two very right things, and ended up doing two slightly-to-moderately wrong things instead.

You will see users refining a question because they understand it, and answering a question because they understand it. Most of the time, doing both these things is good, not bad.

I think this is ridiculous and should be flagged for moderator attention. It's not a fair game anymore, undermines the whole concept of providing several answers and the ability to upvote them. It gives me a feeling of selfishness by the answerer.